Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The True Christian Concept of The Supernatural

rose window Notre Dame, ParisThe New atheists constantly mock the SN as though they know what it is. When they discuss it they include anything not naturalistic. The modern conception is that SN is everything from Bigfoot to the resurrection, include ghosts, UFOs and Psychic Powers. It never occurs to them Christians were using the term before the modern concept of naturalism so it can't just mean everything that's not naturalistic. Jerry Coyne is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. He is also an apologist for atheism. Coyne says something more interesting than than Dawkins does, however, he says that SN could be studied by science.[1] Although, I'm sure Dawkins probably agrees with his reasoning. If SN could not be so studied it would be unreasonable to fault the notion for not having scientific evidence. Coyne asserts that modern science's tendency to set religion aside as belonging to a different order of reality (magisteria) thus being unsuitable is “accomodationist dogma.” [2]

If you’ve frequented this site, you’ll know that I disagree with this stand. I adamantly maintain that science can indeed test the supernatural—at least those claims about the supernatural that involve its interaction with the real world. Indeed, you’ll be familiar with several claims about the supernatural that have already been tested, and refuted : the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition. If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”.[3]

Of course he wrongly assumes that theistic faith per se is limited to young earth creationism.Young Earth Creationists are christians but they are not the only kind of Christians. I believe in healing but neither healing nor are directly supernatural, and the occult is not part of the Christian faith so it is not Christian supernatural,He also says, “In other words, we can provisionally accept that there is no god because we don’t see the kind of evidence that we should see if god were present (answered prayers, conformable miracles at Lourdes, and so on….)” Keep reading, we are about to see it.Ironically, I agree with him on one thing, science can test those aspects of the SN that affect our lives, the only problem is the things he names are not SN. He also does a slippery slope by stating we can test those aspects of SN that overlap with nature then asserting we can go all the way and deny the reality of God based upon that. In this chapter I explore the nature of the original Christian concept. Secientistic thinking writes SN out of reality as unscientific, and as superstition. They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship. Those experiences are empirical and have been easily documented to exist and to have effects that make them unique. SN is the tendency of divine encounter to raise human nature to a higher level. Here we can understand human nature as both behavioral tendencies as well as consciousness. This means the scientific fortress of facts is predicated upon a concept of an order of nature that did not exist when the term “supernatural” came into being. Therefore, scientistic skepticism is ideological and not scientific; it uses the mystique of science (the illusion of Technique) to interject its own metaphysical assumptions while triumphing over the assumption of a straw man argument.Anthropologist Benson Saler quotes the great Emile Durkheim in pointing out that the idea of a bifurcated reality made up of an upper real of “supernatural” and a lower real of “natural” is a modern Western concept that begins with modern science. “[the mysterious world of supernatural above the natural] is not of primitive origin….it is science and not religion that has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.” [4] Saler points out that this concept of the realm above nature presupposes a ream of nature bound together by natural laws. This is a modern concept brought to us by science. He also draws upon Durkheim, Hallowell, and Richard in support' the use of the term “supernatural” has a long history that proceeds this modern scientific concept. [5]Therefore, this separation and divison of natural law from that something beyond it can't be the original Christian concept.The Original Concept of SupernatureAll of these objections assume a certain version of the SN. It has become a catch-all for anything non materialistic or naturalistic that scientistic types want to snub without really having to disprove it. Supernatural today means anything from ghosts, Bigfoot, UFO to psychic powers, and angels and demons and God in heaven. Not so with the original concept. In the early centuries of Christian philosophy the original Greek fathers thought of God as transcendent but they did not necessarily conceive of that as “supernatural.” The Church fathers took their notions from the Greeks. “The term 'supernatural' and cognate words in various European languages were employed Long before the rise of modern natural sciences. [6] The school of Miletus (Ionian Greeks) are generally credited with being the first school of critical philosophy. Their use of the term Phusis (roughly translated “nature;” from this term we derive our word Physics.) caused them to be deemed a “physicists” [7] The Stoics had a concept of natural law and materialism. Their natural order would not have been based upon supernatural design. Aristotle viewed the universe working in a rational manner out of necessity rather than design. Ultimately he grounded everything (motion) in the prime mover, but his prime mover was not anthropomorphic and did not design a higher order but worked by necessity. Many ancients had a notion of natural order without a contrasting notion of a supernatural order. “For some the most interesting opposition was conceptualized as a contrast between nature and art...Christian thinkers through the fifth century did not develop theologically significant uses of supernatural” [8]Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ. He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] They saw the primary ontological distinction as pertaining to God and creation. Thus while we would classify angels and demons as supernatural in the category with God, apart from natural things, they would classify angels and demons with the created order, blew the level of God as creator. [10]Leading up to the period in which began to emerge terms that would be understood as SN, used by Christian mystics such as Cyril and Dionysius, from the end pf the Apostolic age, the Church faced certain struggles over doctrines with a variety of groups all labeled under the same stigma as “Gnostic.” There was confusion over Chrisatian identity, confussion over the Christianity of Gnostic ideas of dualism between matter and spirit. The Orthodox Church emerged in dialectical relation to the gnostics. Even though they rejected the notion of the evil nature of matter that most such groups taught they created their own dualism with the moral superiority and ontological exaltation of spirit over matter. This forged the way for Neoplatonic Christianity.Neoplatonism began with Plotinus who died around 270A.D.. Another major figure in the school was Proclus (d.485). that the notion of supernatural really begins to emerge. Neoplatonism is a variation on Platonic thinking that posited a totally transcendent origin of all things. This was a principle, not a personal god. They called it “the one” (a term used by Plato –sort of the “form of the forms”). The one did not create the world dirctly but the world emerged from it through a series of emanations, much like the particulars from the realm of the forms. For that reason the physical realm is not separated out from the one completely and thus the one is emanate within the world. Christian Platonists used hierarchies of angels and what we would call “supernatural beings” in place of emendations. [11] In names such hierarchies Dionysius used, among other things, the term huper hamousios. Hamousios was an important term in the Chronological disputes and the Trinitarian controversy it means “substance” or “being.” God is three persona in one substance. It could be translated essence. [12] Huper might be translated “superior.” It might be “above.” That plays into the notion of a realm above nature. Higher nature. Eugene R. Fairweather concures with Dionysius' use of the term and also points out that John of Damascus (676-749) also used it in the same way (speaking of God in the adverbial form Supernaturaliter). [13]When various works of Dionysius were translated into Latin by John Scotus Erigena, he rendered it supernaturalis, from which we derive our term “supernatural.” [14]The term was given the Neoplatonic implication of superior substance. Thomas Aquinas preserved the Neoplatonic aspects of the word. God is the first cause who actively and purposefully creates all things, as opposed to the unmoved mover which works unconsciously and of necessity. Moreover, God endows the creatures with their own necessity so that morally each one is an end in itself. [15] Scholastic theology developed the dichotomy of the realm of SN above the realm of nature based upon the distinction between nature and Grace. The centerpiece of that theology is God's free gift of Grace to man in the redemptive act of Christ. This is a gratuity added to human nature and enables a new relationship between creature and creator. That relationship consists of adoptive showmanship and culminates in the elevation of human nature.[16]The Trace of God,by Joseph Hinman, on Amazon. The 200 studies in this book prove that Mystical experience is real, this article just proved that the original concept of SN is mystical experiemce. Therefore, SN is real.

Comments

Anonymous said…

JH: They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship.

So what? Who cares how "supernatural" is defined?

As you admit, science has the ability to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of God. We do not need to worry about whether God is supernatural or not, we do not need to woory what supernatural means. What we care about is the existence of God, and we have established that science has a accumulated a huge amount of information about the world, and yet no science points to the existence of God.

Interesting. I read the paper, and it doesn't seem to say exactly what you think. it says the term applied to 'elevation of humanity" could be glossed as supernatural, but it is not to be understood in that sense. The word supernatural has shifted in meaning, but has always been understood as something distinct from the natural order. That is how it is defined right from the start. As I read this paper, the word originally had a much more religious connotation, referring to gods, angels, and souls. But with the coming of science, the meaning has shifted more to include things that are not necessarily divine.

Anonymous said...JH: They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship.

So what? Who cares how "supernatural" is defined?

well that's pretty stupid, you are not a stupid guy so you are being a slouch. If you criticize an idea and you get the idea wrong your criticisms are wrong. If you don't care your criticisms don't matter, which is it,?

As you admit, science has the ability to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of God.

that's because we can warrant belief aside from proof so we don't need proof. One thing we can warrant is supernatural which is mystical experience,

We do not need to worry about whether God is supernatural or not, we do not need to woory what supernatural means. What we care about is the existence of God, and we have established that science has a accumulated a huge amount of information about the world, and yet no science points to the existence of God.

wrong because science dedicate Mystical experience winch is SN is a valid reason to warrant brief,

im-skeptical said...Interesting. I read the paper, and it doesn't seem to say exactly what you think. it says the term applied to 'elevation of humanity" could be glossed as supernatural, but it is not to be understood in that sense.

wrong, what that the Sailor article? He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it,

The word supernatural has shifted in meaning, but has always been understood as something distinct from the natural order.

you can't fault Christianity for a term it doesn't us, don't you know what a straw man is?

That is how it is defined right from the start.

wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God, a couple of thinkers such as John of Damascus they were exceptions their thinking until 500 when they started talking about SN but that was about mystical,

As I read this paper, the word originally had a much more religious connotation, referring to gods, angels, and souls. But with the coming of science, the meaning has shifted more to include things that are not necessarily divine.

what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>

Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ. He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] They saw the primary ontological distinction as pertaining to God and creation. Thus while we would classify angels and demons as supernatural in the category with God, apart from natural things, they would classify angels and demons with the created order, blew the level of God as creator. [10]Leading up to the period in which began to emerge terms that would be understood as SN, used by Christian mystics such as Cyril and Dionysius, from the end pf the Apostolic age, the Church faced certain struggles over doctrines with a variety of groups all labeled under the same stigma as “Gnostic.” There was confusion over Chrisatian identity, confussion over the Christianity of Gnostic ideas of dualism between matter and spirit. The Orthodox Church emerged in dialectical relation to the gnostics. Even though they rejected the notion of the evil nature of matter that most such groups taught they created their own dualism with the moral superiority and ontological exaltation of spirit over matter. This forged the way for Neoplatonic Christianity.

Neoplatonism began with Plotinus who died around 270A.D.. Another major figure in the school was Proclus (d.485). that the notion of supernatural really begins to emerge. Neoplatonism is a variation on Platonic thinking that posited a totally transcendent origin of all things. This was a principle, not a personal god. They called it “the one” (a term used by Plato –sort of the “form of the forms”). The one did not create the world dirctly but the world emerged from it through a series of emanations, much like the particulars from the realm of the forms. For that reason the physical realm is not separated out from the one completely and thus the one is emanate within the world. Christian Platonists used hierarchies of angels and what we would call “supernatural beings” in place of emendations. [11] In names such hierarchies Dionysius used, among other things, the term huper hamousios. Hamousios was an important term in the Chronological disputes and the Trinitarian controversy it means “substance” or “being.” God is three persona in one substance. It could be translated essence. [12] Huper might be translated “superior.” It might be “above.” That plays into the notion of a realm above nature. Higher nature. Eugene R. Fairweather concures with Dionysius' use of the term and also points out that John of Damascus (676-749) also used it in the same way (speaking of God in the adverbial form Supernaturaliter). [13]

Their natural order would not have been based upon supernatural design. Aristotle viewed the universe working in a rational manner out of necessity rather than design. Ultimately he grounded everything (motion) in the prime mover, but his prime mover was not anthropomorphic and did not design a higher order but worked by necessity. Many ancients had a notion of natural order without a contrasting notion of a supernatural order. “For some the most interesting opposition was conceptualized as a contrast between nature and art...Christian thinkers through the fifth century did not develop theologically significant uses of supernatural” [8]

He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it

- That's right. One of those terms that is 'close' is huper phusin. It refers to the growth or elevation of humanity. That phrase might be translated at supernatural, but the "phusin" part if it really means growth, and it happens to be the root word from which nature comes. But this came from the tradition that made no distinction between natural and non-natural. In other words, it should not be understood as meaning supernatural. It's about growth of the human spirit.

wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God

- Yes, Joe. Like I said in the previous remark. You can read, but you don't understand.

what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>

- No.Joe. I read it (unlike you) and understood what he said. It wasn't until there was a distinction between the natural and the non-natural that the term supernatural arose. It came from the Latin, not the Greek. And it refers to that distinction. That's what the article tells us.

The true concept of supernatural arose later, as described in the latter part of the paper:

page 15) They clearly regarded things spiritual as ultimately more desirable than than things material. Their points of view, I think, paved the way for the eventual advancement and acceptance of a theology of the supernatural.

page 16) Neoplatonists were influential in promoting the tradition of describing spiritual beings (Gods, angels, and human souls) with terms that suggest certain senses of what we generally take to be implied by "supernatural". ... The Latin term supernaturalis was given to the neoplatonic sense of superior substance.

He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it

- That's right. One of those terms that is 'close' is huper phusin. It refers to the growth or elevation of humanity. That phrase might be translated at supernatural, but the "phusin" part if it really means growth, and it happens to be the root word from which nature comes. But this came from the tradition that made no distinction between natural and non-natural. In other words, it should not be understood as meaning supernatural. It's about growth of the human spirit.

that was the use made by one guy who he says was the exception, it was also a step toward what became known as SN. I know Greek. It says nature because about the higher nature,

Me: wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God

- Yes, Joe. Like I said in the previous remark. You can read, but you don't understand.

dense boy you are missing the obvious again! Since what you think of as SN was not present in their thinking then have meant something else by the term. What they meant was our human nature being raised to the higher level in God not a divide between SN ande N in the modern sense.HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT A DIVINED BETWEEN MATERIAL AND SPIRITIUAL

what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>

- No.Joe. I read it (unlike you) and understood what he said. It wasn't until there was a distinction between the natural and the non-natural that the term supernatural arose. It came from the Latin, not the Greek. And it refers to that distinction. That's what the article tells us.

you did not read the whole you sure as hell did not understand it stupid, the basic premise of the article is that modem concepts of SN are wrong! He argues that the modern ideas are conditioned by scientific thinking in the enlightenment they reflect the concerns of the French philsophes and ancient world Christians could not possibly i have talked about that, I FOOTNOTED THAT QUOTE AT THE BEGRIMING OF MY PAPER!!!!

Anthropologist Benson Saler quotes the great Emile Durkheim in pointing out that the idea of a bifurcated reality made up of an upper real of “supernatural” and a lower real of “natural” is a modern Western concept that begins with modern science. “[the mysterious world of supernatural above the natural] is not of primitive origin….it is science and not religion that has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.” [4] Saler points out that this concept of the realm above nature presupposes a ream of nature bound together by natural laws. This is a modern concept brought to us by science. He also draws upon Durkheim, Hallowell, and Richard in support' the use of the term “supernatural” has a long history that proceeds this modern scientific concept. [5]

The true concept of supernatural arose later, as described in the latter part of the paper:

look follow the historical narrative It starts with "Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ." quoting myself, we talked about this above St Cryil is the first step and he is talkie about the elevation of human nature not a diving line between metaphysics between material and spiritual. that starts im 444 and becomes promiomnamt by 500

It's going to be translation of Dyonisius into Latin that creates the term SN.

ME: "He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] (fn = 39 in Saler)

page 15) They clearly regarded things spiritual as ultimately more desirable than than things material. Their points of view, I think, paved the way for the eventual advancement and acceptance of a theology of the supernatural.

only imn terms of elevation human nature not in terms of rocks and trees,it's noit saying spirit is better than flesh and blood it's saying being loving and kind and even tempered is better than being aggressive and mean. it's saying being aware of God's presence is better than being without God, better than temporal power

page 16) Neoplatonists were influential in promoting the tradition of describing spiritual beings (Gods, angels, and human souls) with terms that suggest certain senses of what we generally take to be implied by "supernatural". ... The Latin term supernaturalis was given to the neoplatonic sense of superior substance.

up have such bad reading comprehension. He talking about the development mysticism. Of course neo platonic influences meant emphasis o nonspiritual relativity but that does ntput the dividend between material and spiritual,not in the sense of realms, he's talking about experiencing mystical consciousnesses,

you seem to be assuming that translation from Latin means there was some Latin world of SN thought that was just like the modern dichotomy between science and religious thought, waiting in the Latin experience to be brought into the church.He is just pitting it into Latin because the church spoke Latin at that point. It wasn't until the high middle ages that they began thinking about a divide between metaphysical reality. Before that point they are talking about human experience of God's presence.

JH: well that's pretty stupid, you are not a stupid guy so you are being a slouch. If you criticize an idea and you get the idea wrong your criticisms are wrong. If you don't care your criticisms don't matter, which is it,?

If I am wrong, how come you did not address my point? Why does it matter how we define supernatural when we consider whether God exists or not? Why do we need to use the term in the discussion?

JH: that's because we can warrant belief aside from proof so we don't need proof. One thing we can warrant is supernatural which is mystical experience,

Are you trying to prove the supernatural exists? Or God exists? I thought the later. Have I got that wrong?

If you have proof that ghosts exist, will you consider your goal to be achieved? I would guess not. As I understand it, you objective is to prove God, not the supernatural. So why get hung up on what supernatural means?

Whether or not it is supernatural is irrelevent. What we care about is whether they come from God. If it turns out they come from ghosts, that would be a fail for you. You are no trying to prove the supernatural, you are trying to prove God.

up have such bad reading comprehension. He talking about the development mysticism. Of course neo platonic influences meant emphasis o nonspiritual relativity but that does ntput the dividend between material and spiritual,not in the sense of realms, he's talking about experiencing mystical consciousnesses

- Joe, I read the article. Before supernatural, they talked about huper phusin, which is similar in some respect, but they did not use the term 'supernatural', and it did not mean supernatural. The word 'phusin' means 'growth'. THAT's what they meant by the term. Your reading comprehension sucks.

Here is the etymology of the word 'supernatural, from Oxford Etymology Dictionary:early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "supernatural order" is "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." It is contrasted with the "natural order", which is the "world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities". So there is a relationship to the elevation of the human soul, but that elevation is not what they define as supernatural.

I know you think you are the possessor the true Christian belief, but everything I see, including the article you are using as a source, says otherwise. You need to set aside your biases and see things a little more objectively.

Does it make a difference if we simply define supernatural as that which transcends nature? If that is the correct definition, then Pix's point (wrong as it is factually) falls regardless of the facts because that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature.

My point is the definition of supernatural is irrelevant to a discussion on whether God exists. Can you say why that is factually wrong?

It is interesting that the reason you give for why my point fail does not include the word "supernatural". Seems to me that is actually supporting my claim that the word is irrelevant to the discussion!

Pix's point (wrong as it is factually) falls regardless of the facts because that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature.

- You have to hand it to religionists. No matter what point you make, they will find fault with it. At one moment, they complain that science deliberately ignores God and the immaterial realm. And in the next, they rope those things off, protecting them from any scientific scrutiny and declaring that they are out of reach of science.

Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.

im-skeptical, I am asking because Joe seems to be using a different definition of supernatural than I do. To me, my definition is very simple, and if it is the correct definition then it certainly does mean that sciences that measure nature wouldn't be able to test for it (getting back to Pix's original argument). I am not one who tries to rope off God, but it is certainly true that there is no way to test for God directly. Still, I am quite confident that we can see God's hand in nature even if you cannot (by scientific test) prove that it is God's hand. Science has clarified how incredibly unlikely it is that life was arise spontaneously or without direction. That is testable. God directly is not.

Yes, Joe uses his own definition of supernatural that, as far as I know, nobody else shares. If anyone could say there is a "correct" definition, I think the dictionary would tell us what that is. But there may still be some question as to whether it is something that can be investigated by science. Here's a pretty good rule of thumb. Science doesn't rule anything out. But it does deal with things that are observable. If God or any supernatural entity has some visible effect on our world, then that effect is something that science can investigate.

Anyone who is familiar with science knows that many scientific theories are based on observation of the effects of things that are not directly seen. In fact, many would argue that we don't really sense anything directly. (Vision occurs when the eyes detect photons that have bounced off something. By detecting those photons, we infer that something is there.) We infer the existence of the Oort cloud without ever having seen it. So if God is leaving a detectable trace, we should be able to infer his presence.

On the other hand, there are things that you might see as evidence of God, but there is actually a better explanation. Abiogenesis is an example of that. Science has most emphatically NOT "clarified how incredibly unlikely it is that life was arise spontaneously or without direction." That's a trope you hear from the same crowd that denies evolution. It simply isn't true. Take a look at this.

I tried to post earlier and my post got lost. Let us hope this is more successful...

BK: Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.

I am not saying the supernatural is irrelevant, I am saying the definition of the supernatural is irrelevant in a discussion about the existence of God.

We can discuss whether God exists without using the word "supernatural". You did that before when you said "that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature." The word "supernatural" does not appear in your reasoning - because it is not needed.

You talk about "evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA". Why? We are discussing the existence of God. What you need to support your position is evidence of divine intervention. If evidence of ghosts doing genetic engineering comes to light, that will not help your case at all. Sure divine intervention could be considered supernatural, but why does that matter?

Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

im-skeptical, yes, I agree that we can use the dictionary to get an basic definition of "supernatural," but I know from when I was in school, dictionary definitions are often just the starting point.

I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.

Beating around the bush? And why do you say that? There has been extensive scientific research into this area. Aside from actually creating living things from scratch, what we see is that all the pieces can be produced in nature, and that the probability of proto-life forming is not NEARLY as remote as the creationists want us to think.

Noe show me the scientific research that supports your case - not just "I don't see how it could happen, therefore God did it".

BK: Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

Okay, my bad. It was an illustration, not the basis of my argument, but we only need to look at the quote below to see you discussing how we see God with science, and no sign of the word "supernatural", so now I can use that as an illustration. What we are interested is specifically God, not the supernatural in general.

BK: I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.

So how does your hypothesis explain how humans, like other close relatives on the tree of evolution, cannot synthesis vitamin C? Mainstream science explains by saying that around 61 million years ago, a genetic mutation in the gene that codes for vitamin C caused it to stop working, but as the primates were prolific fruit eaters this had no deleterious effect, and the mutation spread through the population, and today the result non-functional gene is therefore present in apes - including humans - and monkeys. More details here:

im-skeptical said…Beating around the bush? And why do you say that? There has been extensive scientific research into this area. Aside from actually creating living things from scratch, what we see is that all the pieces can be produced in nature, and that the probability of proto-life forming is not NEARLY as remote as the creationists want us to think.

Noe show me the scientific research that supports your case - not just "I don't see how it could happen, therefore God did it".8/31/2017 08:26:00 AM Anonymous said…BK: Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

Okay, my bad. It was an illustration, not the basis of my argument, but we only need to look at the quote below to see you discussing how we see God with science, and no sign of the word "supernatural", so now I can use that as an illustration. What we are interested is specifically God, not the supernatural in general.

BK: I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.

So how does your hypothesis explain how humans, like other close relatives on the tree of evolution, cannot synthesis vitamin C? Mainstream science explains by saying that around 61 million years ago, a genetic mutation in the gene that codes for vitamin C caused it to stop working, but as the primates were prolific fruit eaters this had no deleterious effect, and the mutation spread through the population, and today the result non-functional gene is therefore present in apes - including humans - and monkeys. More details here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

I would love to know why God gave us a faulty gene for vitamin C synthesis.

Pix8/31/2017 09:29:00 AM Post a Comment

That is not SN. That whole line of reasoning is wrong the topic itself is wrong,it's not SN

K said...Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.

8/30/2017 04:02:00 PM Delete

Bill why do you thin k you are helping by perpetuating their hijack term? they changed the meaning of the term then keep saying Christianity is stupid for teaching it. But it's not the term Christianity taught before they changed it. Now Christianity is stupid to teach their term,why do that? That is just walking into their trap.

That is not SN. That whole line of reasoning is wrong the topic itself is wrong,it's not SN

- Joe, if you are talking about mysticism, why don't you just say that, and allow the rest of the world to use that agreed-upon definition of the word 'supernatural'? Even the article you cite gives a definition of the word that is consistent with the standard definition. You are the one and only person who takes issue with it, as far as I know.

Got to long the irony of a rant against science (and the "forward of sorts" is surely that), published on the internet, using the heights of technology that science - and not religion - has given us.

We have to read a fair bit before we get to anything solid. This is the first:

"As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure."

That is not a bug in evolution, it is not evolution at all! Furthermore, science is quite open about this being as yet unknown. In fact it becomes clear that this guy has a problem with science not being dogmatic:

Science is not like religion. It does not just make up nonsense and present it as fact. It proposes what might have happened, and then looks for evidence. That means there can be a lot of uncertainty. See here too:

"The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles."

What makes it especially odd is that later he says:

"Humans today are a puffed-up and overconfident species. We believe that we know everything, or shortly will. We have a sense of near-omniscience equaled only by that of teenagers."

Here he is complaining about over-confidence, just after objecting to evolution as being too tentative!

I gave up after that. If there is some part of it that you think particularly stands out, why not post about it, and we could debate it? The guy claims that getting evolutionists to confront his claims is "like giving a bobcat a prostate exam"; we can see how true that is (not that I am not a biologist).

Pix Because religion has a long history of objectivity, and we never see different sects burning each other at the stake over their differing opinions. Oh wait, we do.

In fact, I would suggest that there is far more consensus in science than in religion.

It will be interesting to see whether the response here is the knee-jerk shriek of "scientism" or if someone will actually confronts this issue.

We do see that, but that isn't what Jesus (founder of Christianity) commanded. Those acts were carried out by loons (like Calvin) that cared more about law and control than Christ's love.

Also, I love how atheists always throw the word religion around. News flash: Christ didn't come to earth to start a new religion. He came to mend a broken relationship between man and God. That's why I don't consider myself to be religious.

Pix Science is not like religion. It does not just make up nonsense and present it as fact. It proposes what might have happened, and then looks for evidence. That means there can be a lot of uncertainty.

Dude, this is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. That's why people don't take you and IMS seriously. You leave comments like this often.

Here is the article I referenced: A Simpler Origin for Life. It says: "The hypothesis that life began with RNA was presented as a likely reality, rather than a speculation, in journals, textbooks and the media. Yet the clues I have cited only support the weaker conclusion that RNA preceded DNA and proteins; they provide no information about the origin of life, which may have involved stages prior to the RNA world in which other living entities ruled supreme. Just the same, and despite the difficulties that I will discuss in the next section, perhaps two-thirds of scientists publishing in the origin-of life field (as judged by a count of papers published in 2006 in the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere) still support the idea that life began with the spontaneous formation of RNA or a related self-copying molecule."

It continues: "No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck."

So, I make a slight modification to what I said earlier, The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected by many scientists as not sufficiently workable.

The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected by many scientists as not sufficiently workable.

- So you base your dismissal of abiogenesis based on one outdated article that found difficulties with one single hypothesis? What about the rest of the article that makes a thermodynemic-based hypothesis? What about the article I showed you? Here is an article showing newer research that reveals the formation of RNA isn't so out of reach after all?

A clear sign of confirmation bias is when you search until you find an answer you want to hear, and reject everything else.

JBsptfn: I put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted). And again, you are showing that you are into scientism with how much faith you put into science.

Pix: In fact, I would suggest that there is far more consensus in science than in religion.

JBsptfn: We do see that, but that isn't what Jesus (founder of Christianity) commanded. Those acts were carried out by loons (like Calvin) that cared more about law and control than Christ's love.

Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

And really your assertion of what Jesus commanded is just your opinion of what he might have said, potentially as twisted and biased as anyone else.

JBsptfn: Also, I love how atheists always throw the word religion around. News flash: Christ didn't come to earth to start a new religion. He came to mend a broken relationship between man and God. That's why I don't consider myself to be religious.

I can understand why you want to distance yourself as much as possible from the twists and biases inherit in religion, but your reasoning makes no sense.

Sure, Jesus did not come to start a new religion. That is because he was part of one that already existed. If you follow Jesus, you should not be non-religious, you should be the same religion as him - Jewish!

Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.

And really your assertion of what Jesus commanded is just your opinion of what he might have said, potentially as twisted and biased as anyone else.

Sure, Jesus did not come to start a new religion. That is because he was part of one that already existed. If you follow Jesus, you should not be non-religious, you should be the same religion as him - Jewish!

fallacious reasoning, Jesus told his disciples he was leaving the Holy Spirit with them who would guide them into all truth,it was under that guidance that they morphed into another religion.At the end of his life Paul seemed to think it was the other way around they were the true faith of Judaism and the rest of Jews didn't get it.

in the OT God never says: this is a religion follow this religion: Israel was a nation and a religion, the Jews did not have the concept of being a religion and everyone had to join thier faith.

- So you base your dismissal of abiogenesis based on one outdated article that found difficulties with one single hypothesis? What about the rest of the article that makes a thermodynemic-based hypothesis? What about the article I showed you? Here is an article showing newer research that reveals the formation of RNA isn't so out of reach after all?

I think christians sometimes think they can prove things with science they don't realize how hard that is.It's not proven but it; not worth arguing about because it's not clear enough for proof wither way, But the real issue is so what if life emerged imn that manner? That doesn't prove that it did it independently of God. Still no basis for the claim that Universe can pop into existnece out of nothing.

Pix: Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

JH: Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

You may not label them that, but religions make all sorts of claims. Jesus is the Son of God is a claim made by one religion. Even if we restrict the discussion to Christian religions, there are plenty of examples of disagreement, where claims have been twisted to one person's or one group's bias. This is very different to science, the vast majority of which is agreed upon by all concerned. Certainly there are areas of doubt and disagreement, but these are at the fringe, and furthermore they are recognised as such, rather than taken as dogmatic truths.

By the way, I said that what Jesus commanded was not the issue because we were discussing how claims in science are twisted and biased and comparing that to the claims of religion.

JH: Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.

Of those Christians in the US perhaps half are Catholic so believe salvation is through faith, baptism, keeping the commandments and participation in the sacraments whilst the other half think it is by faith alone. Half consider Mary to be exalted, half merely blessed. Half consider the Pope infallible, half do not (and some even think he is the anti-Christ!). And if you go into the individual sects, you will find far more differences. Some will say homosexuality is a sin, some will say it is not. Some believe in demonic possession. Some believe in angels. Some believe women should not preach. Some believe in Premillennialism, or Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, or Futurism, or Preterism, or Historicism, or Calvinism...

However, all those scientists accept germ theory, the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, and all the rest.

JH: BS. we have 8 levels of verification for the validity of the Gospels,

What does that mean? Can you name a single person whose eye witness account of Jesus' death and resurrection we have? I know you have looked at this in detail, and I know that you know the authors of Matthew and Luke were not eye witnesses. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, he was not a witness, and based his text on an earlier account. That might be an eye witness account, but it might not. The Gospel of Peter, which I know you like, was severely redacted later, so much that we have little idea what was in the original, even supposing that was an eye witness (and if it was based on the pre-Markan passion narrative presumably was not). The Gospel of John could possibly have been authored by an eye witness, but the late writing argues strongly against that.

Your "8 levels of verification for the validity" sounds fancy, but really does not amount to much at all.

H: Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

You may not label them that, but religions make all sorts of claims. Jesus is the Son of God is a claim made by one religion. Even if we restrict the discussion to Christian religions, there are plenty of examples of disagreement, where claims have been twisted to one person's or one group's bias.

yes but don't be like those people be like me,

This is very different to science, the vast majority of which is agreed upon by all concerned. Certainly there are areas of doubt and disagreement, but these are at the fringe, and furthermore they are recognised as such, rather than taken as dogmatic truths.

again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

By the way, I said that what Jesus commanded was not the issue because we were discussing how claims in science are twisted and biased and comparing that to the claims of religion.

that is not what we are discussing,This is the comment section for my post, not yours

JH: Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.

Of those Christians in the US perhaps half are Catholic so believe salvation is through faith, baptism, keeping the commandments and participation in the sacraments whilst the other half think it is by faith alone. Half consider Mary to be exalted, half merely blessed.

Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.

Half consider the Pope infallible, half do not (and some even think he is the anti-Christ!). And if you go into the individual sects, you will find far more differences. Some will say homosexuality is a sin, some will say it is not. Some believe in demonic possession. Some believe in angels. Some believe women should not preach. Some believe in Premillennialism, or Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, or Futurism, or Preterism, or Historicism, or Calvinism...

you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

However, all those scientists accept germ theory, the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, and all the rest.

that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

JH: BS. we have 8 levels of verification for the validity of the Gospels,

What does that mean? Can you name a single person whose eye witness account of Jesus' death and resurrection we have?

I know you have looked at this in detail, and I know that you know the authors of Matthew and Luke were not eye witnesses. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, he was not a witness, and based his text on an earlier account. That might be an eye witness account, but it might not. The Gospel of Peter, which I know you like, was severely redacted later, so much that we have little idea what was in the original, even supposing that was an eye witness (and if it was based on the pre-Markan passion narrative presumably was not). The Gospel of John could possibly have been authored by an eye witness, but the late writing argues strongly against that.

Jhoun was not written late,the new trend set's it in the 60s. But it was written before that and existed within the community for decades, Bauckham (Jesus and the eyewitnesses)supports the community as author concept and shows the Gospel of John is full of eye witnesses,

Your "8 levels of verification for the validity" sounds fancy, but really does not amount to much at all.

yes it does. 8 different sources from which the gospel story is verified,

Look at my chart's on Paul and Jesus Is how he alludes to about 12 Gospel stories and about 12 or more teachings of Jesus this was at least a decade before Mark. Koester (he's dead now btw very sad) argues upon this basis Paul had a saying source, That makes Paul a reliable level so he;s one of the levels.

That is kind of the point. Each religioniost is convinced their own opion on religion is absolutely right, and everyone else has it wrong. Compare to science, where there is a consensus across the vast majority of it.

JH: again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

That is your own bias putting words in my mouth. I have not said science is the only form of science, and only said that its proponents agree with each other about the vast majority, and that is patently not the case for proponents of religion, which clearly refutes JBsptfn's claim that it is a good idea to "put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted)."

JH: Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.

Joe, people have been burned to death over the differences in beliefs between Catholic and Protestant. It may be your opinion (and Kung's) that really they are the same, but plenty of others vehemently disagree (just go to CARM and see the fundamentalists and Catholics at each others throats). Religious people even disagree on what they disagree on!

JH: you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

I am making the point that we have more reason to trust science where the proponents agree with each other, rather than religion, where the proponents do not.

JH: that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

Yes, science is based on evidence. That is why the proponents all agree on what mainstream science is.

Compare to religion, which draws from who knows where, and has no need to back up its claims, and is it any wonder its proponants are so dogmatic that they are right, and so convinced all the others are wrong?

That is kind of the point. Each religioniost is convinced their own opion on religion is absolutely right, and everyone else has it wrong. Compare to science, where there is a consensus across the vast majority of it.

yes it's quite a failing of those other guys not to see that I'm the one,

JH: again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

That is your own bias putting words in my mouth. I have not said science is the only form of science, and only said that its proponents agree with each other about the vast majority,

That's the obvious implication of your statement otherwise your observation has no impact,

and that is patently not the case for proponents of religion, which clearly refutes JBsptfn's claim that it is a good idea to "put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted)."

I did not see JB's comment so I don't know what he was getting at,

JH: Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.

Joe, people have been burned to death over the differences in beliefs between Catholic and Protestant.

who? where? when what city?who ordered it? what were the actual charges? Servtus was not burned for Catatonic idea but for denying the Trinity, which was common to both. The point about Kung's discovery coming way up in the 1960's rather than the 1500s is that it took a long time to realize they weren't so far apart, the fact they thought they were does not prove they were it only means they weren't willing to listen to each other. The religious wars were not fought by scholars.

It may be your opinion (and Kung's) that really they are the same, but plenty of others vehemently disagree (just go to CARM and see the fundamentalists and Catholics at each others throats). Religious people even disagree on what they disagree on!

plenty of people think science is wrong,a lot of people don't believe in evolution,the people of whom you speak are not endemic to the theological process, they are ignorant of it,

JH: you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

I am making the point that we have more reason to trust science where the proponents agree with each other, rather than religion, where the proponents do not.

we have no reason to trust science for the kind of knowledge theology supplies,as I said before the only reason we can have that kind of agreement in hard science is because the kind of knowledge sought is not as complex or as beyond us as theology or social sciences, In social sciences you don't have that kind of certainty either,

JH: that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

Yes, science is based on evidence. That is why the proponents all agree on what mainstream science is.

NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

Compare to religion, which draws from who knows where, and has no need to back up its claims, and is it any wonder its proponants are so dogmatic that they are right, and so convinced all the others are wrong?

that is utter bullshit, you have to back up what you say in theology, just because you are ignorant of how it's done doesn't mean it;snot dome at all.you really stupid enough to think students in seminar class at Harvard will just sit there and let you say real stupid things in graduate school? They are just as anxious to prove their superiority as any other graduate students. Of course you have to back up what you say,

you are assuming that only a certain kind of physical sciences is valid knowledge and after that there's no way to know anything,It escapes your reason that in theology a lot of emphasis is placed on a text,so one of the obvious methods that is premium in theology is textual criticism. That is very scientific. In fact it's quite empirical having dealt with that then theology itself will use the text as a spring board.So deductive logic will be of great use there, and so on, Clearly there are methods it's absurd to say there's no way to back anything.

JH: who? where? when what city?who ordered it? what were the actual charges? Servtus was not burned for Catatonic idea but for denying the Trinity, which was common to both. The point about Kung's discovery coming way up in the 1960's rather than the 1500s is that it took a long time to realize they weren't so far apart, the fact they thought they were does not prove they were it only means they weren't willing to listen to each other. The religious wars were not fought by scholars.

My understanding is that is all cases these would have been done after a trial by the relevant authorities. That may not be scholars (and then again it may be), but as far as I know all were sanctioned by the church, whichever church that may be. And all were Christians burning Christians they disagreed with.

JH: plenty of people think science is wrong,a lot of people don't believe in evolution,the people of whom you speak are not endemic to the theological process, they are ignorant of it,

I specifically said the proponents of science. Sure a lot of people are ignorant, and so do not believe in evolution. But of those people who know the disciple - i.e., bilogists - over 99% readily accept evolution.

The proponents of religion include preachers, rabbis and imams; how far do you think they agree?

JH: we have no reason to trust science for the kind of knowledge theology supplies,as I said before the only reason we can have that kind of agreement in hard science is because the kind of knowledge sought is not as complex or as beyond us as theology or social sciences, In social sciences you don't have that kind of certainty either,

What knowledge does theology supply, Joe? What makes it different from opinion? Why should we trust it? If it really is knowledge we can trust, why is it so disputed?

This discussion is sparked by comments about whether we can trust science, and I think we have far more reason to trust science than religion.

JH: NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

Well then show me the evidence that all proponents of religion agree on. Should be easy - if religious knowledge has any meaning.

JH: that is utter bullshit, you have to back up what you say in theology, just because you are ignorant of how it's done doesn't mean it;snot dome at all.you really stupid enough to think students in seminar class at Harvard will just sit there and let you say real stupid things in graduate school? They are just as anxious to prove their superiority as any other graduate students. Of course you have to back up what you say,

Oh, my bad. I am just ignorant of how it is done. Do please enlighten me as to how someone supports a thesis in theology, Joe.

Then we can compare to how it is done in science, and see if we can say which will be more trustworthy.

you are assuming that only a certain kind of physical sciences is valid knowledge and after that there's no way to know anything,It escapes your reason that in theology a lot of emphasis is placed on a text,so one of the obvious methods that is premium in theology is textual criticism. That is very scientific.

- I agree it is scientific. That's why people like you are so bad at it. If you actually followed the established methods of textual criticism, you would understand how bad the bible is as a source of historical knowledge.

I agree it is scientific. That's why people like you are so bad at it. If you actually followed the established methods of textual criticism, you would understand how bad the bible is as a source of historical knowledge.

I studied Greek several years it was my undergraduate langue. I have read the NNew Testament in Greek. you don't even know how to look up words in a lexicon,which is about to become apparent on Monday's post.

I have a Masters in theology from a major liberal seminary and I took classes in textual criticism of which you know nothing. You try to claim that this proves the bible is:"no good" you know so little about it you can't tell me what you mean by "no good,"

all you know is your atheist masters tell you Bible is not inerrant you no idea where to g from there, you don't know a liberalism you don't kn ow what liberals say you have no idea that a body of liberal theologians like the bible or why,ignorant supercilious arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all knows nothing,

Oh, my bad. I am just ignorant of how it is done. Do please enlighten me as to how someone supports a thesis in theology, Joe.

Then we can compare to how it is done in science, and see if we can say which will be more trustworthy.

how do you think they do masters egress And doctorates if they they don't defend a thesis? I can't believe you are a professor you are so ignorant of the history of academia yo don't know that advanced degrees in theology existed way before science,

JH: NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

he sys: Well then show me the evidence that all proponents of religion agree on. Should be easy - if religious knowledge has any meaning.

see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

that is scienism that's ideology.

ideology is a socialization process into which one is indoctrinated and essentially brain washed so that they can't see things any other way,that is not the ideal of scientific inquiry,

JH: how do you think they do masters egress And doctorates if they they don't defend a thesis? I can't believe you are a professor you are so ignorant of the history of academia yo don't know that advanced degrees in theology existed way before science,

Odd, that when I ask you to tell me all you can do is ask the question back to me!

I can only conclude neither of us know.

JH: Pix do you think no one defends a thesis in philosophy or history or English? do it the same way,

And again.

Common Joe, you have a masters in this stuff, you should be able to tell me. Why so shy?

JH: see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

JB claimed science should not be trusted because it is subject to being twisted and biased. My point here is that is far more likely to be true of religion, and argument is that the vast majority of scientists agree on all science and all scientists agree on the vast majority of science. Compared to religion, where the religious leaders are dogmatic in their faith, and yet agree on very little.

Okay, you are claiming "other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of everyone agrees on the one thing", but how does that support the claim that science is more open to twisting and bias than religion, Joe?

How can you claim to have true knowledge from religion when the majority of religious leaders disagree with you? Why should I think your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

Odd, that when I ask you to tell me all you can do is ask the question back to me!

no I answered you you should know by what I said,

I can only conclude neither of us know.

yes real intelligent I guess you never wrote a paper for college

JH: Pix do you think no one defends a thesis in philosophy or history or English? do it the same way,

And again.

Common Joe, you have a masters in this stuff, you should be able to tell me. Why so shy?

do you know what I go through to make a post legeable?

JH: see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

JB claimed science should not be trusted because it is subject to being twisted and biased. My point here is that is far more likely to be true of religion, and argument is that the vast majority of scientists agree on all science and all scientists agree on the vast majority of science. Compared to religion, where the religious leaders are dogmatic in their faith, and yet agree on very little.

Okay, you are claiming "other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of everyone agrees on the one thing", but how does that support the claim that science is more open to twisting and bias than religion, Joe?

more open to it? I don't think I said that,

How can you claim to have true knowledge from religion when the majority of religious leaders disagree with you? Why should I think your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

I don't know that is true,you are only outing media figures,most religious leaders are not in that group. Even so it matters why they say it. There's no guarantee that just because they are leaders they are right,

By the way, this is called scepticism, not scientism.

no the idea that scinece is the only fom of valid knowledge is asceticism,

every time he denies that science is the only form of knowledge then he turns right around and says "show some other form of knowledge that does what science does." So he really does think that,every single time he disproves his own assertions by insisting that no other form of knowledge does what science does.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.